Quote from: One Horse Town;234928Well, Pundit started a thread and it turned to US politics within a page or two, so i guess you're right.

I would think that many would have a difficult time taking a thread Pundit started seriously. I for example tend to ignore them with rare exception.

Which thread were you speaking of?

My mistake. It was the 'BBC are pissing me off' thread. But you get the idea.

Quote from: gleichman;234873The other part of this directly references the surrendering of national authority and responsibility to International bodies- the ultimate expression of remote government.

American conservatives seem to forget that all of the international bodies that are with us today were set up by the Americans after WWII - you know, all those pussies who led the fight against fascism and then rebuilt the Western world. I wouldn't call those men Liberal elites. They were hardheaded realists who had been through the fires of the Depression and WWII, and saw the need for international systems to help avert repeats of those catastrophes.

Those organizations aren't governments in any traditional sense. I mean, what binding laws have they passed that oppress Americans? No, the real antipathy to international instutions among American conservatives stems from their abiding faith in American Exceptionalism. If America was chosen by God to be a unique paragon among nations, then any dealings with other nations on something like an even footing must necessarily compromise America's virtue.

There's an excellent article in a recent Economist magazine that argues for the need to reform and revamp many international institutions. Key points:

* Many international institutions look old and impotent. Their responses to problems to often slow and feeble.

* Global organizations should be more focused than they are.

* Membership in these organizations have not kept pace with the enormous increase in relative power of the developing world (China, India, Brazil, etc.).

* There are major global problems that require international responses. Nations can't hide behind their borders and hope problems like disease, pollution, warfare, lawlessness, and financial instability go away.

* Better institutions will not solve intractable problems. But they're better than nothing.

* We can't start from scratch the way the Americans did in 1945 because we don't have a clean slate in the wake of a global catastrophe.

* McCain's idea of a League of Democracies is impractical. Who gets to decide what countries are democracies (do Russia and Iran count?). Anyway, the whole point of a global talking-shops is that they include everybody, not just your friends (you're already talking to them).

It ends with the following comment:

"Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich world - and America in particular - has a choice. Cling to power, and China and India will form their own clubs. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems will be shared."

Quote from: Haffrung;235020American conservatives seem to forget that all of the international bodies that are with us today were set up by the Americans after WWII - you know, all those pussies who led the fight against fascism and then rebuilt the Western world.

American Conservatives well remember who set up those international bodies, and while they were of a somewhat different favor than today's liberials (sharing for example strong support for point 'C' with modern Conservatives)- their were for still for the most part liberials- strong central government types, etc.

The result as we (Conservatives) look back is some praise, and some things a bit short of praise.

Quote from: gleichman;234801As I said before, National Review is a political magazine- it's reviews are therefore of the political impact of the work more than it's art. This is the stated purpose of the magazine, and the articles within.

I will however call you on something, you're saying contemparary == Left Thinking == mainstream and good. This shows your bias rather than describing the magazine's approach.

First para noted, thanks.

I certainly fall into that sometimes, but on this occasion I didn't mean that it should have had a left wing take, I didn't think a political take was required at all.  I think the profanity in Eyes Wide Shut has a reason to be there, I think it's fair to say it jars and doesn't work (I disagree, but it's a valid thing to say), I think objecting to swearing per se is a bit odd.  The second one it was more that his political comment seemed almost unrelated to the work under review.  A bit like how some leftie commentators will insert a random rant about Thatcher in reviewing something set in the '80s, even if the work is not about that.

That said, I was a bit harsh, the reviews were good enough that I disagreed with them.  The equivalent publications in the UK don't hit that standard, the reviews don't merit disagreement.

Quote from: StormBringer;234843:rotfl:
So, only conservatives can make a valid equivalence that their ideology is the more mainstream or better for the common weal?

No, there's a tendency on the left to assume that a left wing take is basically rational and moral, and that therefore a right wing take is at best irrational and at worse immoral.

It's an underlying assumption often, it's where BBC bias tends to come from for example, a perception that on a given issue there's the self evidently correct view and there's the view those other guys have which in the interests of balance we should represent.

The right obviously also thinks the left is at best irrational and at worst immoral, but they tend to be more aware of their own assumption and tend to be less smug about it.

Put another way, Brian raised a fair point.

It's all pretty clear to me Brian, thanks for posting it.